It's Rosenhaus
 

Rosenhaus is Taylor and Moss's agent. He's obviously telling them to stay away from redskins park. He's doing the same thing with some of his GB packer clients.

This is clearly the new trend. Given the salary cap, players, even those under contract, can squeeze more cash out of tems by refusing to play. This threatens to kill a team's cap--you can't just release a malcontent; you take a big cap hit. Knowing this, agents advise their clients to stay away until they get what they want. TO, Portis, and others all cashed in on this. Ugh.

[URL=http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2049905]Sherman: 'I'm very disappointed'[/URL]

Re: It's Rosenhaus
 

I hope the team respond with a new trend of telling these players: "tough noogies, baby, you're under contract." Otherwise, the floodgates have flung wide open for good.

Re: It's Rosenhaus
 

The league must put a stop to this immediately or there is going to be big trouble in river city!

Re: It's Rosenhaus
 

You are correct as this appears to be the latest manifesto of the "New breed of NFL superstar". Contracts mean nothing. Apparently, that "cancer", Drew is leading the pack. Just when you thought the NFL couldn't get any more tawdry or depraved! It's a Damn shame things are evolving like this. It makes me wonder what the hell could be next? I must say Andy Reid handled is the ONLY way possible "If they're here, ok, if not we move on!! Joe will take the same stance!

Re: It's Rosenhaus
 

i defenitly hope so. drew rosenhaus is behind all this. he tells every unhappy client of his to holdout if they don't like their contract. you know what, there are other guys who would jump at the chance to play for a team. i hope the skins will just get some replacement players instead.

Re: It's Rosenhaus
 

Don't hate the player hate the game. Tell them players tough noogies and then when Taylor's contract is up he's gone. They need to get rid of the cap. It gives freedom it brings back free market principles to the situation. You cant have it both ways. people always want it both ways. They have found a loophole in the cap now deal with it.. change the system or it will be exploited .. Cant have it both ways I say if you cant sign a player tough noogies then Danny boy will. lol

Re: It's Rosenhaus
 

[QUOTE=joethiesmanfan]Don't hate the player hate the game. Tell them players tough noogies and then when Taylor's contract is up he's gone. They need to get rid of the cap. It gives freedom it brings back free market principles to the situation. You cant have it both ways. people always want it both ways. They have found a loophole in the cap now deal with it.. change the system or it will be exploited .. Cant have it both ways I say if you cant sign a player tough noogies then Danny boy will. lol[/QUOTE]

As if he wouldn't leave anyway for an extra buck!

What's the cap have to do with it? If anything getting rid of the cap could make matters worse, a player doesn't show up when he's under contract and knows the team has cap constraint's, what will they do if there's no constraint's? They will sit out even longer and more often because they know the fund's are unlimited.

I hope Snyder send's everyone who is under contract and deciedes to sit out a nice big plasma TV, let's see how far a genious like Taylor get's with 1 year's salary and a signing bonus, he probably already burned through most of it, I say you meet force with force it's the only thing these guy's understand!

Re: It's Rosenhaus
 

2007 is an uncapped year from what I have heard, so does this mean that after that year, there is no more salary cap or does this mean that the salary cap will resume in 2008? I agree....this thing has gotten way out of control! The teams, in my opinion, appear to be getting handicapped from the salary cap AND the agents of these players. I guess signing a contract means zip nowadays!

Re: It's Rosenhaus
 

[QUOTE=offiss]As if he wouldn't leave anyway for an extra buck!

What's the cap have to do with it? If anything getting rid of the cap could make matters worse, a player doesn't show up when he's under contract and knows the team has cap constraint's, what will they do if there's no constraint's? They will sit out even longer and more often because they know the fund's are unlimited.

I hope Snyder send's everyone who is under contract and deciedes to sit out a nice big plasma TV, let's see how far a genious like Taylor get's with 1 year's salary and a signing bonus, he probably already burned through most of it, I say you meet force with force it's the only thing these guy's understand![/QUOTE]

Good point! It's time for the teams to start taking control of the situation and not the agents. Greed appears to be the name of the game....football is just secondary.

Re: It's Rosenhaus
 

Man I would love to see the teams stand up to Rosenhaus and just not sign or draft his players for a while. This weasel and the ones like him(ie the Postons) have way too much control over the game. I think part of the reason is that the teams think the fans won't understand why they lost a star player. Personally I say let some other team over pay for some over-hyped player. The Skins have been doing it for far too long.

Re: It's Rosenhaus
 

[QUOTE=joecrisp]I hope the team respond with a new trend of telling these players: "tough noogies, baby, you're under contract." Otherwise, the floodgates have flung wide open for good.[/QUOTE]

Sort of like the Eagles? I much as I hate them I have to give props to the Eagles organization for the way they handle player and their contract demands.

Re: It's Rosenhaus
 

I'm not a big fan of player hold outs, however, I was just listening to a lot of the people he is holding out. The Roster:

T.O.
Santana Moss
Sean Taylor
Edge
Shaun Alexander
Rueben Droughns
Javon Walker
Anquan Boldin

Of them Santana Moss is awaiting a new deal. I could understand that. T.O. doesn't think that making 750k in the third year of his deal is fair...it isn't. Sean Taylor has no leg to stand on, in my book. Edge wants a long term deal or wants to be traded...that's kinda pushing it. Shaun Alexander wants the same. Rueben had one year with the Broncos, the other 4 years of his career he never even broke 100 yards. One year, from out of nowhere doesn't warrant a new deal. He's gonna make 950k this year, if he does it again, then I could understand it. Now, Javon Walker and Anquan Boldin each have a legitimate beef. Boldin has been one of the better wide outs in the league in his first two years and showed a lot of heart last year. He deserves more than 350k this season. Walker is only slated to make 550k next year, 500k this year. He went for 1400 yards last year. He deserves more, too.

Consider the fact that if Javon Walker plays like one of the best WRs in the league the next 2 season and his career is ended and he never renegotiates he'll make slightly more than 1.5 million dollars for his efforts. That's unreal. They should re-do his deal. They should tweak T.O.'s deal, not rip it up and start all over. Boldin deserves a new deal, too.

Nothing is guaranteed to the players in the NFL. It should be able to go both ways. I can see where the players are coming from on this one.

Re: It's Rosenhaus
 

This agent is bad news for the NFL................

Re: It's Rosenhaus
 

[QUOTE=jdlea]I'm not a big fan of player hold outs, however, I was just listening to a lot of the people he is holding out. The Roster:

T.O.
Santana Moss
Sean Taylor
[B]Edge[/B]
Shaun Alexander
Rueben Droughns
Javon Walker
Anquan Boldin
[/QUOTE]

Wow....now the WWE wrestlers are starting to hold out for bigger contracts...or either the guitarist of U2! What's the world coming to? j/k :smashfrea

Re: It's Rosenhaus
 

The thing about T.O. is that he wasn't really a free agent. He had to deal with Philly becuase Baltimore had the rights to him. His agent at that time was a screw up. However he got a BIG signing bonus and it is the contract he signed.
If I was Philly I would say fine let him hold out. Let him sit for a bit losing money and not getting the attention he craves. After that if he doesn't cave in then shop him for a trade, although any smart team wouldn't want him. He causes problems wherever he goes and badmouths his teammates in the media.

Re: It's Rosenhaus
 

Rosenhaus has always dealt well with Snyder though. =/

Re: It's Rosenhaus
 

[font=Garamond][size=3]Suspend any player that does not live up to his contract for 1 year and see how much that hurts his pocket book and maybe he will start to listen to reason then. And suspend the Postons and Rosenhaus' privilege of being an agent for any player for one year. They might wise up too.[/size][/font]

Re: It's Rosenhaus
 

shouldn't we have talked to moss about the contract b4 the trade?

Taylor can't afford not to play if we fight back he won't sit out for 6 years. he will recognize that his career is on the line, i truly think if WE don't give in he will come back.

Re: It's Rosenhaus
 

[QUOTE=Daseal]Rosenhaus has always dealt well with Snyder though. =/[/QUOTE]
Yeah, which kind of has me wondering why he would want to burn that bridge.

Re: It's Rosenhaus
 

I think this salary cap thing limited the wrong aspect of the game.

I realize this idea isn't fool proof, but the salary cap should be placed on the player's contracts and not so much the spending of the team itself. If there was a way to place a decent cap on the contracts - a cap that would get the approval of the player's union, maybe these agents wouldn't have such a strangle hold on the NFL.

Then again, maybe every team should just say live with the contract or find some other line of work. Teams are going to lose superstars, but the flood gates have got to be closed or this is going to ruin the NFL further.

Re: It's Rosenhaus
 

yeah. now there are gonna be more nfl players who think they deserve better deals. i like skinsguys idea about a cap on the player's contracts instead of on the teams. they need a limit, otherwise every team in the league pretty soon is gonna have maybe 5 or more guys who hold out. and drew rosenhaus needs to stop telling his clients holding out is the answer. they should suspend him from being an agent for a year.

Re: It's Rosenhaus
 

[QUOTE=jdlea]Nothing is guaranteed to the players in the NFL. It should be able to go both ways. I can see where the players are coming from on this one.[/QUOTE]

There is one thing that's guaranteed to these players, and that's signing bonus. The players and their agents know that going in, and they negotiate and hold out for as much signing bonus as they can get their hands on, knowing full well that is the key to their financial security.

I'm sorry, but if you negotiated a deal a year ago, you should have negotiated for enough signing bonus to keep you happy for the duration of the contract you agreed to. Otherwise, you should've signed a shorter deal or asked for more signing bonus-- a year ago, not a year after signing the contract.

The Collective Bargaining Agreement is a double-edged sword, and both sides (the players and the owners) have their checks and balances built into the symbiotic salary cap and free agency systems. This argument that players are essentially being exploited by the owners (due to the lack of guaranteed contracts) has no basis in reality. It's a delusional fantasy fabricated by the players and their agents for their own benefit. You can't blame them-- we live in a capitalist society, and everyone's out to get the biggest piece of the pie they can get-- but that doesn't mean the owners should have to bake a new pie every time a player starts crying, "more! more!"

Re: It's Rosenhaus
 

I couldn't have said it better myself Joe! The mentality from the modern player is: I'm a business man first, football player second. If they want to treat football more like a business than a sport, go open a fruit stand. Give me the average joe football player who plays because he loves the sport rather than because he knows he can become an instant millionaire. Years ago, guys played the sport for little or no money....

Re: It's Rosenhaus
 

[QUOTE=skinsguy]I couldn't have said it better myself Joe! The mentality from the modern player is: I'm a business man first, football player second. If they want to treat football more like a business than a sport, go open a fruit stand. Give me the average joe football player who plays because he loves the sport rather than because he knows he can become an instant millionaire. Years ago, guys played the sport for little or no money....[/QUOTE]


Personally I would have used cake, but that's just me. :biggthump

Re: It's Rosenhaus
 

These guys are just making financial decesions and negotiations for themselves. Yes, they signed a contract. However, Sean Taylor is one play away from not having a job or half the physical talent he has now. What happened to Theisman, and to many other players whos careers ended prematurely could happen to anyone. We knew he wasn't happy with his deal right after he signed. He got somewhat shafted on his contract to begin with, and we can restructure it and keep him happy. I have a feeling players will be more willing (moreso than their agents, I assure you) to help a team out if the team helps them out.

If a team wants to constantly renegotiate contracts, then why shouldn't players, unhappy with their contract, at least get it looked at? Would we be happy at players (for instance Samuels last year) when we ask to renegotiate and he says "No thanks." He renogitated. Luckily for him he got a bigger SB, but Ramsey, Jansen, Wynn, and others all renegotiated their contracts for either the same amount or slightly more. Most importantly giving the skins cap relief.

Re: It's Rosenhaus
 

[QUOTE=Daseal]These guys are just making financial decesions and negotiations for themselves. Yes, they signed a contract. However, Sean Taylor is one play away from not having a job or half the physical talent he has now. What happened to Theisman, and to many other players whos careers ended prematurely could happen to anyone. We knew he wasn't happy with his deal right after he signed. He got somewhat shafted on his contract to begin with, and we can restructure it and keep him happy. I have a feeling players will be more willing (moreso than their agents, I assure you) to help a team out if the team helps them out.

If a team wants to constantly renegotiate contracts, then why shouldn't players, unhappy with their contract, at least get it looked at? Would we be happy at players (for instance Samuels last year) when we ask to renegotiate and he says "No thanks." He renogitated. Luckily for him he got a bigger SB, but Ramsey, Jansen, Wynn, and others all renegotiated their contracts for either the same amount or slightly more. Most importantly giving the skins cap relief.[/QUOTE]

It is true they are 1 play away from a career ending inury, but that's why they get signing bonus's, what was Taylors? Around 10 mil or there about's, that should be more than enough to cover any injury.

Re: It's Rosenhaus
 

[QUOTE=Daseal]These guys are just making financial decesions and negotiations for themselves. Yes, they signed a contract. However, Sean Taylor is one play away from not having a job or half the physical talent he has now. What happened to Theisman, and to many other players whos careers ended prematurely could happen to anyone. We knew he wasn't happy with his deal right after he signed. He got somewhat shafted on his contract to begin with, and we can restructure it and keep him happy. I have a feeling players will be more willing (moreso than their agents, I assure you) to help a team out if the team helps them out.

If a team wants to constantly renegotiate contracts, then why shouldn't players, unhappy with their contract, at least get it looked at? Would we be happy at players (for instance Samuels last year) when we ask to renegotiate and he says "No thanks." He renogitated. Luckily for him he got a bigger SB, but Ramsey, Jansen, Wynn, and others all renegotiated their contracts for either the same amount or slightly more. Most importantly giving the skins cap relief.[/QUOTE]

It's not the Redskins' fault Sean Taylor flip-flopped on his agents and then proceeded to sign a deal he wasn't happy with. Sure, he's young and stupid, but that doesn't mean he gets a do-over every time he screws up (oops, wait a minute, we're talking about pro athletes here, aren't we?). Regardless, if he plays to the level he's capable of playing, he makes a ton of money, based on the incentives built into his current contract. If he gets hurt and can't play anymore, then he needs to be responsible enough to make that rookie signing bonus last until he can find another source of income. It always goes back to the fact that these guys put their signature on the contract. If they knew going in they were going to want more money (which apparently was the case with Sean Taylor and Terrell Owens), then they shouldn't have agreed to the terms of the deal they signed to begin with. I thought the modus operandi was always to hold out until you get the terms you want. That's been standard operating procedure since free agency started. Where's Sean Taylor been the past 13 years?

So teams renegotiate contracts all the time-- that's true. But it's not like players don't benefit from that process. The main reason players agree to renegotiate (or "help out the team"), is because the team helps them out by giving them more guaranteed money, which is then prorated over the course of the contract for salary cap purposes. Generally, when players refuse to renegotiate (which is what Chris Samuels did prior to last season), it's because the team isn't offering them enough guaranteed money. You used Chris Samuels as an example of a player "helping out the team." Well, look at how much guaranteed money Samuels got for "helping out the team"-- just slightly less than what Seattle's Walter Jones received for signing a new long-term deal. The other guys you mentioned may have agreed to about the same amount of total money that was in their original deals, but I'm sure they got enough of that money guaranteed to make it worth their while to "help out the team". It's not like these guys are saints making some altruistic sacrifice to "help out the team" when the team asks them to renegotiate.

If players are going to refuse to play on the contracts they signed less than a year ago, then teams are going to simply have to let them sit, and let them lose game checks. Otherwise, Pandora's box will never be closed, and a new CBA will be even tougher to complete prior to the uncapped year in 2007. If the uncapped year comes to pass, the NFL will be on a slippery slope towards a labor lockout.

Re: It's Rosenhaus
 

Someone mentioned a cap on players contracts earlier - fine in theory, but you would still need a cap for total team salary, otherwise whats to stop one fo the richest teams signing 53 players at the max-contract salaries whilst a small market team could not keep up.
The salary cap is there to create parity amongst all the markets.
What I can see happening during negotiations for the new CBA is that contracts cannopt be reworked for 2, maybe 3 years from the date of signing - that way we will see less of these "one year wonders" holding out and players who have played well over those 2 or 3 years can then negotiate for better salaries. This would also mean teams could not decrease said salaries in those 2 or 3 years either.

The NFL has that program anyway where they pay bonus money to players who outperformed their contracts in a particular season.

Re: It's Rosenhaus
 

That sounds like a viable solution, SantanaMan. Let's hope there's something like that in the next CBA. This is definitely a situation that needs to be addressed.

Re: It's Rosenhaus
 

[QUOTE=offiss]Personally I would have used cake, but that's just me. :biggthump[/QUOTE]

:lol:

LOL! With chocolate sprinkles! :biggthump


Santanaman:

Never said the idea was fool proof, but at the sametime, why penalize the owners who have the money to pay the most to their players? It's the idea of having a free market. They way it stands now, to me, it's like a communist approach to the NFL.

By having the players' salary capped, the franchises aren't having to pay out such outlandish salaries while the players are still making a pretty darn good living.

This is where it would get sticky: finding a salary limit that all owners could deal with and that would get the approval of the players' union. In theory, this would be ideal and would still give all nfl franchises equal opportunity to attract players to their team, while loosening the stranglehold of the agents.

Re: It's Rosenhaus
 

[QUOTE=SantanaMan]
What I can see happening during negotiations for the new CBA is that contracts cannot be reworked for 2, maybe 3 years from the date of signing - that way we will see less of these "one year wonders" holding out and players who have played well over those 2 or 3 years can then negotiate for better salaries. This would also mean teams could not decrease said salaries in those 2 or 3 years either.
[/QUOTE]

This does sound good and something they should have considered sooner! I mean, you guys remember the days when a contract was actually a binding agreement?

Re: It's Rosenhaus
 

[QUOTE=skinsguy]:lol:

LOL! With chocolate sprinkles! :biggthump


Santanaman:

Never said the idea was fool proof, but at the sametime, why penalize the owners who have the money to pay the most to their players? It's the idea of having a free market. They way it stands now, to me, it's like a communist approach to the NFL.

By having the players' salary capped, the franchises aren't having to pay out such outlandish salaries while the players are still making a pretty darn good living.

This is where it would get sticky: finding a salary limit that all owners could deal with and that would get the approval of the players' union. In theory, this would be ideal and would still give all nfl franchises equal opportunity to attract players to their team, while loosening the stranglehold of the agents.[/QUOTE]

I think you're right about the sticking point: the NFLPA would never agree to a player salary cap, wherein individual player salaries would be limited to a maximum annual figure. With the NFLPA, you're talking about an organization that works hand-in-hand with the players' agents to ensure that players have unlimited compensation potential throughout their careers. Their raison d'etre is to maximize the players' income-- not limit it.

That's why the current team salary cap system is in place. It's the only system that both the owners and players could agree upon when the current CBA was negotiated.

You also have to keep in mind that the NFL has experienced unrivaled and unprecedented success among sports leagues worldwide, since this particular "communist approach" was implemented over a decade ago. This is because the CBA provides for a competitive market, by ensuring that the players and the teams they play for are competing on a level field (or, at least, a reasonable approximation of such).

Like you said, the idea isn't foolproof, but I don't think the current system is as communistic as you suggested. There's certainly a free market dynamic at play here, as free agency allows players to command salaries commensurate with their value on the open market. If teams want to curb the inflation of those values-- which are sure to soar if star players and one-year wonders are allowed to re-write their deals every year-- the first step teams need to take is to refuse to renegotiate contracts unless it will help their salary cap situation. Thus far, that's generally what teams have done. But this current assault on the system by Rosenhaus and his high-profile clients will certainly test the mettle of even the most fiscally-disciplined franchises.

Re: It's Rosenhaus
 

I think refusing to renegotiate contracts is the only thing owners can do right now. It's kind of like playing chicken. Too bad the average Joe (not you Joe, lol) can't hire an agent to do the same in the workforce.

Re: It's Rosenhaus
 

Plus it has always been said by the NFL that the cap was less about controling player salaries than leveling the playing field for all teams. If the cap was on the players then richer teams could aford to pay all/most of their players the max while small market teams might not be able to do the same.

The "communist approach" including the salary cap and T.V. revenue sharing is one of the biggest reasons NFL is the number one sport in this country. Without these small market teams like Green Bay, Cincy, Cleveland, and Buffalo would either not be able to compete or just not be there.

Re: It's Rosenhaus
 

[quote]I think refusing to renegotiate contracts is the only thing owners can do right now. It's kind of like playing chicken. Too bad the average Joe (not you Joe, lol) can't hire an agent to do the same in the workforce.[/quote]
Then teams better get ready for players unwilling to restructure ruining their cap.

Re: It's Rosenhaus
 

[QUOTE=offiss]Personally I would have used cake, but that's just me. :biggthump[/QUOTE]

Oops, I did say "pie" didn't I? I guess I shouldn't get people started on pie around here. We all know what happens when the subject of pie comes up, don't we? ;)

Re: It's Rosenhaus
 

[QUOTE=Daseal]Then teams better get ready for players unwilling to restructure ruining their cap.[/QUOTE]

All's fair in love and contract negotiations, I guess. But like I said, players generally agree to restructure their contracts because they get more guaranteed money out of the deal. It's rare that players actually wind up taking less money. It happens (Jerome Bettis), but it's rare.

Re: It's Rosenhaus
 

[QUOTE=offiss]Personally I would have used cake, but that's just me. :biggthump[/QUOTE]


Welcome to the NFL. Cake or death?

Re: It's Rosenhaus
 

After listining to the press confrense, it seems to me that it is Rosenhouse(SP) that is telling players to hold out. Moss said that he was on Drew almost everyday to get the deal done so that he could get to D.C.

Moss even said that if it was New York where he knew the system then thats a different story, but he was on a new team and he said that he was telling Drew that he needs to be in D.C. so get the deal done ASAP...

Re: It's Rosenhaus
 

I agree. The way Drew talked, it was like "Finally, I'm getting what I want here."